[Krusty]

http://www.voanews.com/english/2005-06-16-voa73.cfm
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N19426783.htm
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/06/...raqresolution/
http://www.wral.com/news/4625469/detail.html

From the right:

Sen. Chuck Hagel, a Nebraska Republican, was quoted by U.S. News and World Report as saying the administration's Iraq policy was failing.
"Things aren't getting better; they're getting worse. The White House is completely disconnected from reality," said Hagel, a member of the Foreign Relations Committee. "It's like they're just making it up as they go along. The reality is that we're losing in Iraq.

From the left (i.e. meaningless to many on this board, but thrown in to show the bipartisan nature of the sentiment)

"I wish Porter Goss would speak to his intelligence people on the ground," Biden said on CBS's "Face the Nation."
"They didn't suggest at all it was near its last throes. Matter of fact it's getting worse, not better," Biden said.

From a bipartisan group of house members (quotes from pro-war Repbulican Walter Jones of NC):

The Republican congressman who pushed for "french fries" to be renamed "freedom fries" joined a bipartisan group of House members Thursday to call on President Bush to begin plans for a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq.
......
"After 1,700 deaths, over 12,000 wounded and $200 billion spent, we believe it is time to have this debate and this discussion on this resolution," said Jones, a member of the House Armed Services Committee
----
Jones' district includes Camp Lejeune, which has sent thousands of Marines to Iraq since the war began. So far, more than 100 of those Marines have been killed.
"We have defeated an evil man," Jones said, "and I think our troops have performed magnificently."
But, Jones said, he voted to send troops to Iraq because he believed the nation had weapons of mass destruction.
"If I had known that that was not true at the time we voted two years ago," he said, "I wouldn't have voted to go into Iraq."

Recent polls show a majority of Americans now feel that the war was not worth the cost, and that we should begin pulling troops out of Iraq. A sentiment which shows steady growth month-over-month. The recent release of British documents that imply a foregone conclusion about war and the upcoming release of approximately 144 more pictures and 4 more videos from Abu Ghraib will doubtless push the general mood further toward withdrawal.

The point of this thread isn't to bring up every single debate that has been discussed ad nasuem in this forum about whether or not the war is/was justified. Rather, it's to ask a question that is fairly agnostic to whether or not the war was justified:
Do you think the tide of public sentiment in the US has now turned (or will shortly turn) past the point of no return for the Iraq war ? More pointedly, is there anything you can think of that would somehow boost popular support for the war again or is it in an irrevocable slide that will end in our eventual withdrawal in Iraq without clearly "winning" ?

Since posting a thread without posting an opinion is against forum rules, I'll go out on a limb and state that I think we are at, or very near, such a point. With Saddam in custody for over a year-and-a-half, the WMD questioned answered, and the situation on the battlefield looking a lot like a stalemate, I just don't see what could happen to make popular American sentiment start going back in the other direction, toward a majority favoring an open-ended continuation.

[SimpleLife]

I think there are 2 ways to look at this.

A) The official way

or

B) the Political way.

The first has to do with the objectives of the war. Were these objectives met?

1) Rumsfeld said the first is to end the regime of Saddam Hussein "by striking with force on a scope and scale that makes clear to Iraqis that he and his regime are finished."

2) The coalition will identify, isolate and eliminate Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

3) It will also eliminate Iraq's missiles and other delivery systems, the production capabilities and distribution networks, he said.

4) Coalition military forces will search for, capture or drive out terrorists who have found refuge in Saddam Hussein's Iraq.

5) The coalition will also collect intelligence related to terrorist networks in Iraq and beyond and will collect intelligence on the global network of illicit weapons of mass destruction activity.

6) It will end sanctions and immediately deliver humanitarian relief to the displaced and the many needy Iraqi citizens.

7) The coalition will secure oil fields and resources, "which belong to the Iraqi people and which they will need to develop their country after decades of neglect," Rumsfeld said.

8) Finally, the coalition will create the conditions for Iraq's rapid transition to a representative government "that is not a threat to its neighbors." The coalition is committed to ensuring the territorial integrity of Iraq.

I'll let you answer those if you want.

The second, the Political way, is the nasty one that come in the process. No one is against a good idea. For many, the War in Iraq was a good idea at the time; it obviously came at a very emotional moment and people wanted some blood. Now they got some, and it looks bad. On top of that, the good old boys are amongst the victims, which makes it worse. Suddenly, everything that reminded of Viet-Nam seems to come back.

People can only go so far and saving face is also a factor.

[zizban]

I don't think we're losing in Iraq but we are not winning either. Iraq is a tough place these days.

[ambush]

What a sore failure.

The US military cannot even properly take control of Iraq.

Do you really think the US could eventually be a threat to bigger countries? the answer is NO.

[Railroader]

If ambush is right, Canada better start worrying! You speak Chinese ambushie?

[macamac]

Bigger Countries? What is your point?

What does size have to do with us being able to cripple an existing government of a "big" country.
We did it during the Cold War with the defunct CCCP.

Did you forget that? We never even dropped a bomb or invaded the "SOVIET UNION" now just Russia.

The problem with Iraq is, if we leave there before the job is complete, then Iraq is toast.

[ambush]

Originally Posted by Railroader

If ambush is right, Canada better start worrying! You speak Chinese ambushie?

just accept a world ruled by China.
or help your president getting over it.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by ambush

just accept a world ruled by China.
or help your president getting over it.

Just like the USSR?

[ambush]

Originally Posted by Railroader

Just like the USSR?

dude, try to actually make sense next time you post. or just go back to school, that should help ya.

[Railroader]

O.K. "dude."

[Randman]

Like congress would have a clue.

[Sosa]

And with military recruitment falling the draft can't be far off. Hmm, a lost cause, young men avoiding the military, the draft, obstinate president... yep, it sure looks like Vietnam.

[macintologist]

It actually looks more like Afghanistan in the 80s. Not Vietnam

[TheMosco]

Originally Posted by macintologist

It actually looks more like Afghanistan in the 80s. Not Vietnam

We know how great Afganistan turned out in the 90s too...

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by ambush

dude, try to actually make sense next time you post. or just go back to school, that should help ya.

He is making sense. Go back and reread the series of posts, if you still don't get it, get your mom to read it and explain it to you.

[zizban]

Originally Posted by macintologist

It actually looks more like Afghanistan in the 80s. Not Vietnam

Sure does. Spot on observation.

[ebuddy]

Someone had cited Hagel as a bipartisan example of scrutiny regarding our actions in Iraq, then cited polls showing Americans share this sentiment. Hagel was the governor of my State and I can tell you the primary reason for Hagel saying what he said is the very poll cited below the statement. He's known for this and will be running for President if not in 2008, then later. Many politicians make "centrist-sounding" statements when positioning themselves for the Presidency. I wouldn't put too much stock in what Hagel says right now. That said; you cannot say our actions in Iraq have been dynamically successful either, but to simply say "they're a failure" is different and should be used in accordance with solid examples of both successes and failures and determining which is more profound IMHO. Afterall, no one expected everything the Americans touched would turn to gold, but overall will it be viewed as positive? That's the question we should be asking. If there's no hope for success in Iraq, we should bail. If there is the possibility of hope in Iraq, and it is somewhat contingent upon our continued presence there, then by all means I believe we should remain available to help finish what we started.

[zizban]

The US isn't going to achieve "victory" in Iraq by millitary force alone. What we need to do is address the concerns of the Iraqis and find the roots of the insurgency. There are, for sure, many insurrgents who just hate Ameirca and the millitary but there may be others who, for instance, may be angry that power is sporadic in the capital or their local school was destroyed and wasn't rebuilt, etc. It's these people we need to connect with if were are going to win in Iraq,

[Krusty]

Originally Posted by Randman

Like congress would have a clue.

Who does have a clue, in your opinion ? Remember, this is the same Congress that overwhelming supported 100% of what the President has asked for thus far. Did they have a clue for the last 3 years and just stop recently or something ? Was Walter Jones right when he pushed for the "Freedom Fries" bill but now wrong when he states he wouldn't have voted for the war but for the WMD threat ? The Congressmen who are speaking up now are formerly major Hawks for this war and, as you know, overwhelmingly Conservative in both chambers. This certainly isn't the "liberal congress" that Reagan used to complain about.

--------------------

Back on the actual topic, I'm still wondering if we have crossed the point of no return for support. The US populace has already tipped distinctly over the 50% mark, Congress (lagging, of course) is starting to follow suit. 2006 is an election year. If public opinion continues its trend and, say 60-70% of Americans end up wanting to pull out, don't you think this could end up like the Presidential election in '68 ... everyone having to run on a "bring 'em home" platform or risk not getting elected ? (ebuddy, just read your commnents .... wouldn't the scenario you attribute to Hagel be true of all politicians? ... line your platform up with the feelings of your constituency to enhance electibilty ?)

My opinion is that we are heading toward such an outcome. With recruitment numbers very low (actually even lower than they seem, some branches of the armed forces have quietly lowered their goals over the last few months so the shortfalls are really much more dramatic than they even seem), and a pro-War crowd that gives the war lip-service but largely doesn't really consider the cause important enough to actually go fight it, I don't see what other outcome could possibly be on the horizon. Some people are above 40, or not medically fit ... but there are literally millions of people who are of-age and healthy who (apparently) don't see the war as really that critical to our national security or they would sign up. Lots of the soldiers over there have put their careers on hold (or gave them up entirely), lots have families to support at home, and many have served before but re-enlisted when the hostilities revved up ... which says to me that there is a portion of the population that really is deeply committed to the cause in Iraq.

IMO, it is the "soft supporters" who will crumble over the next year or two if, say, a tax is levied to actually pay for the war (as has been done historically in all previous major conflicts) or a draft is re-instituted such that they or their family members actually have to fight it. Its easy to be pro-War when it doesn't require any personal sacrifice. When sacrifice becomes part of the equation, people tend to have a much stricter standard about which wars are really critical to our national security and which ones sorta .. aren't. Now that the imminent threat posed by Iraq has been shown to be much less than the population believed it to be in 2002/03, one would expect all the people who supported the war primarily for that reason to stop supporting it as adamantly. Politicians will either follow suit or be booted out.

[macintologist]

Originally Posted by zizban

Sure does. Spot on observation.

We invaded a country and have our friendly regime in there, and we're fighting a bunch of islamofascist insurgents.

Maybe we aren't as bad as the Russians were, but the tactics of the enemy are similar.

[dan johnson]

Originally Posted by zizban

The US isn't going to achieve "victory" in Iraq by millitary force alone. What we need to do is address the concerns of the Iraqis

Within the 3rd Infantry Division’s area of responsibility alone, there are over 160 civil affairs projects currently being conducted. EST's (Essential Services Team) main focus in that area is to address the lack of electricity, water, sewage removal and trash collection. Since April, they've started over 50 new projects, which have provided over 3,000 jobs to local Iraqis. To date, the US Military has spearheaded thousands of such projects all across Iraq.

...and find the roots of the insurgency.

Hate.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by dan johnson

Hate.

Yup, it has nothing to do with living in a warzone brought upon you by a foreigner, losing your loved ones in bombings(from both sides), seeing your home blown up(by accident of course) and the list goes on. Absolutely nothing to do with that. They are just full of hate for no reason at all.

[dan johnson]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

Yup, it has nothing to do with living in a warzone brought upon you by a foreigner, losing your loved ones in bombings(from both sides), seeing your home blown up(by accident of course) and the list goes on. Absolutely nothing to do with that. They are just full of hate for no reason at all.

I never said that.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by dan johnson

I never said that.

He said "find the root" of the insurgency. You answered "hate".

If there are reasons for the hate, hate isn't the root of the insurgency.

Understand?


ps. this might have sounded a bit aggressive but wasn't meant like that.

[ambush]

Looks like I have a new fan.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by ambush

Looks like I have a new fan.

No, just another person who's tired of your anti-US sh*t.

Grow up son.

[CreepingDeth]

Originally Posted by MacNStein

No, just another person who's tired of your anti-US sh*t.

Grow up son.

Jean's still stuck in pseudo-intellectual misanthropy. Add in a dash of incoherence and condescension. Maybe the real world will give him a kiss and a hug.

Macintologist, it seems you've mellowed since I left. What happened? It seems like you're making a tad more sense now.

[ambush]

to say the least, this forum entertains me

[spacefreak]

Anyone who thinks we are losing the war in Iraq is a friggin moron. Congressfolks included, if that's what they say.

We are in the latter stages of the operation. US and Iraqi forces have been mowing down these insurgents. They started in and around Baghdad 9 months ago, and they have worked their way to the the Syrian border, (where they have been sweeping their way through towns).

Sure, whiners will makeup some disturbingly elaborate scenario as to why the US is really "losing" the war in Iraq, but it's all based on crap.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by spacefreak

Anyone who thinks we are losing the war in Iraq is a friggin moron. Congressfolks included, if that's what they say.

We are in the latter stages of the operation. US and Iraqi forces have been mowing down these insurgents. They started in and around Baghdad 9 months ago, and they have worked their way to the the Syrian border, (where they have been sweeping their way through towns).

Sure, whiners will makeup some disturbingly elaborate scenario as to why the US is really "losing" the war in Iraq, but it's all based on crap.

Then how come attacks haven't gotten any fewer? In just two days 70 people have been killed in attacks. Is it the same desperation as your government mentioned soon after you unveiled SH?